Talmud su Salmi 100:78
Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot
HALAKHAH: “They said to him, did not the teacher use to say,” etc. Rebbi Yose the Southerner said before Rebbi Jonah: Would it not have been necessary to state, if it is so then those of the Days of the New Moon could be brought on the Day of Atonement since one increases holiness but one does not diminish; but those of the Day of Atonement cannot be brought on the Days of the New Moon since one does not diminish holiness169A general principle (cf. Bikkurim 3:3, Note 57; Yoma 3:8 41a l. 10, Megillah 1:12 72a l. 47, Horaiot 3:3 Note 151; Babli Yoma 12b). Since this principle cannot be overridden, it is an argument not for practice but against R. Simeon’s opinion that the sacrifices can be substituted one for the other and for R. Meїr’s that they cannot.
The argument presupposes that the cumulation of cases for which the sacrifices atone indicates a higher state of holiness.. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Bun170The name tradition is impossible. The second generation R. Eleazar cannot transmit in the name of the third generation R. Bun I or the fourth generation R. Bun II. Probably one should read: R. Bun in the name of R. Elazar or even R. Yose ben R. Bun in the name of R. Eleazar. Cf. Note 24. explained it by another explanation171To uphold the text of the Mishnah. Since the argument is directed against one made in the Academy of R. Jonah, of the last generation of Galilean Amoraim, it should be attributed to the absolutely last Amora R. Yose ben R. Bun.: if it is so then those of the Day of Atonement could be brought on the Days of the New Moon, for included in their atoning is the atoning of the Days of the New Moon172He asserts that all purification sacrifices have the same status of holiness but their effectiveness depends on the intent of their dedication. One sacrifice atones for all instances for which it was dedicated but none for which it was not dedicated. He must assume that the dedication was for a purification sacrifice, not for “a sacrifice whichever it will be” since the only public sacrifices of rams are purification sacrifices including the scapegoat., but those of the days of the New Moon cannot be brought on the Day of Atonement, for they atone only their atonement. For if anybody ate five olive-sized pieces of fat and dedicated four sacrifices, being of the impression that he had dedicated five, did he atone173Assuming that he is obligated to bring five different sacrifices for five different inadvertent sins punishable by extirpation of which eating fat is the paradigm (cf. Horaiot 3:3). If he offered only four, one sin by necessity remains without atonement.? Or if he ate four olive sized pieces of fat, dedicated five sacrifices, being of the impression that he had dedicated four, not so much more174Automatically all sins are atoned for (even though one would expect the case never to happen since the owner of the sacrifice is required to confess his sin while leaning with his hands on the head of the sacrifice (Lev. 4:29), and probably would detect his error.)? And so 175Tosephta 1:2.“Rebbi Simeon used to say, thirty-two rams are brought for the public every year. Thirty one outside, they are eaten. One inside which is not eaten176Some of the blood of the purification offering of the Day of Atonement is brought inside the Sanctuary; the rest has to be burned outside the Sanctuary (Lev. 6:23). All other purification sacrifices must be eaten by the priests, (Lev. 6:22).. And the scapegoat. Twelve for the twelve months of the year. Eight on Tabernacles, seven on Passover, two on Pentecost, one for the day and one for the bread. One on New Year’s Day and one on the Day of Atonement.” 177A similar text in Midrash Tehillim 100. It is standard Galilean doctrine that the 11 Psalms 90–100 were composed by Moses (even Ps. 99!), not only Ps. 90 as indicated by its header. In the Babylonian tradition (transmitted by prayer texts) Moses was the author of Pss. 90–91 and the Sabbath of Ps. 92. When Moses heard this he said, it follows that anybody for whom the doubt of a transgression arises should bring all these sacrifices! Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: When the Holy One, praise to Him, said to Moses, he shall confess178Lev. 16:21. This resolved Moses’s problem and informed him that his prior concern, that the slightest doubt might impose an unbearable financial burden on the sinner, was unfounded. on it etc., he started and said, A Song of confession179Ps. 100:1. Usually, one translates “a song of thanksgiving” since this is appropriate for the תוֹדָה sacrifice [Lev. r. 9(3)]., inspired by he shall confess on it.
The argument presupposes that the cumulation of cases for which the sacrifices atone indicates a higher state of holiness.. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Bun170The name tradition is impossible. The second generation R. Eleazar cannot transmit in the name of the third generation R. Bun I or the fourth generation R. Bun II. Probably one should read: R. Bun in the name of R. Elazar or even R. Yose ben R. Bun in the name of R. Eleazar. Cf. Note 24. explained it by another explanation171To uphold the text of the Mishnah. Since the argument is directed against one made in the Academy of R. Jonah, of the last generation of Galilean Amoraim, it should be attributed to the absolutely last Amora R. Yose ben R. Bun.: if it is so then those of the Day of Atonement could be brought on the Days of the New Moon, for included in their atoning is the atoning of the Days of the New Moon172He asserts that all purification sacrifices have the same status of holiness but their effectiveness depends on the intent of their dedication. One sacrifice atones for all instances for which it was dedicated but none for which it was not dedicated. He must assume that the dedication was for a purification sacrifice, not for “a sacrifice whichever it will be” since the only public sacrifices of rams are purification sacrifices including the scapegoat., but those of the days of the New Moon cannot be brought on the Day of Atonement, for they atone only their atonement. For if anybody ate five olive-sized pieces of fat and dedicated four sacrifices, being of the impression that he had dedicated five, did he atone173Assuming that he is obligated to bring five different sacrifices for five different inadvertent sins punishable by extirpation of which eating fat is the paradigm (cf. Horaiot 3:3). If he offered only four, one sin by necessity remains without atonement.? Or if he ate four olive sized pieces of fat, dedicated five sacrifices, being of the impression that he had dedicated four, not so much more174Automatically all sins are atoned for (even though one would expect the case never to happen since the owner of the sacrifice is required to confess his sin while leaning with his hands on the head of the sacrifice (Lev. 4:29), and probably would detect his error.)? And so 175Tosephta 1:2.“Rebbi Simeon used to say, thirty-two rams are brought for the public every year. Thirty one outside, they are eaten. One inside which is not eaten176Some of the blood of the purification offering of the Day of Atonement is brought inside the Sanctuary; the rest has to be burned outside the Sanctuary (Lev. 6:23). All other purification sacrifices must be eaten by the priests, (Lev. 6:22).. And the scapegoat. Twelve for the twelve months of the year. Eight on Tabernacles, seven on Passover, two on Pentecost, one for the day and one for the bread. One on New Year’s Day and one on the Day of Atonement.” 177A similar text in Midrash Tehillim 100. It is standard Galilean doctrine that the 11 Psalms 90–100 were composed by Moses (even Ps. 99!), not only Ps. 90 as indicated by its header. In the Babylonian tradition (transmitted by prayer texts) Moses was the author of Pss. 90–91 and the Sabbath of Ps. 92. When Moses heard this he said, it follows that anybody for whom the doubt of a transgression arises should bring all these sacrifices! Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: When the Holy One, praise to Him, said to Moses, he shall confess178Lev. 16:21. This resolved Moses’s problem and informed him that his prior concern, that the slightest doubt might impose an unbearable financial burden on the sinner, was unfounded. on it etc., he started and said, A Song of confession179Ps. 100:1. Usually, one translates “a song of thanksgiving” since this is appropriate for the תוֹדָה sacrifice [Lev. r. 9(3)]., inspired by he shall confess on it.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Tractate Soferim
The following [occurrences of lamed-alef (not)] which have to be read as lamed-waw (to, by, has) are found in the Prophets and Hagiographa: multiply;32The introductory word of 1 Sam. 2, 3 in which occurs the phrase and by Him are actions weighed according to the ḳerë, but the kethib reads ‘and actions are not weighed’. Hushai;33i.e. 2 Sam. 16, 18, where the ḳerë is his will I be and the kethib ‘I will not be’. said;34i.e. 2 Kings 8, 10. Here the ḳerë is say unto him, thou shalt surely recover, and the kethib ‘say, thou shalt not surely recover’. thou hast multiplied;35i.e. Isa. 9, 2.The ḳerë is Thou hast increased their joy, and the kethib ‘Thou hast not increased joy’. their affliction;36i.e. Isa. 63, 9. The ḳerë is In all their affliction He was afflicted (lit. there was affliction to Him) and the kethib ‘in all their affliction He was not an adversary’. He slay me;37i.e. Job 13, 15. The ḳerë is yet will I trust Him, the kethib ‘I have nothing to hope for’. I keep silence;38i.e. Job 41, 4. The ḳerë is would I keep silence (to him), the kethib ‘I would not keep silence’. as the (wandering) sparrow;39i.e. Prov. 26, 2. The ḳerë is shall come home (to him), the kethib ‘shall not come home’. his friends;40i.e. Prov. 19, 7. The ḳerë is they turn against him, the kethib ‘they do not turn’. Zerubbabel;41i.e. Ezra 4, 2, The ḳerë is we do sacrifice unto Him, the kethib ‘we do not sacrifice’. were fashioned;42i.e. Ps. 139, 16. The ḳerë is ‘and for it there was one among them’, the kethib when as yet there was none of them. In this instance E.V. follows the kethib. know ye;43i.e. Ps. 100, 3. The ḳerë is we are His, the kethib ‘and not we (have made) ourselves’. be gathered;44i.e. Isa. 49, 5. The ḳerë is be gathered unto Him, the kethib ‘be not gathered’. name,45i.e. 1 Chron. 11, 20. The ḳerë is and had a name among the three, the kethib ‘and not a name among the three’. [this last also] in the corresponding passage.46viz. in 2 Sam. 23, 18. This reading is suggested by N.Y. to replace that of V ‘and his word’ which is meaningless. In this verse, however, lamed-waw is both written and read. [More probably ודבר in V is a misreading of daleth signifying ‘four’ which should be attached to the beginning of the next Rule.] [38a]
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy